Author Dan Brown Discusses His Loss of Faith as a Child

_{Clive Hayden

September 28, 2009

Education, Evolution, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Author Dan Brown is interviewed at Parade, and comments on his loss of faith as a kid:

I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

It’s six days of creation in Genesis, not seven days. He should read Gerald Schroeder’s book The Science of God.

I’d like to ask our wonderful commenters to contribute other stories of notable people who have lost their faith as a result of materialistic/evolutionary presumptions in modern science.

Comments

Please see The Science of Denial by Douglas Axe for some relevant observations. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/the_science_of_denial.html Nakashima, I appreciate that you are asking questions, which is important. Continue to scrutinize, especially in regard to claims that the properties of undirected processes can account for the origin of ribosomes and protein production from symbolic information. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Best blessings to you and yours, ericBericB_{October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, Here are some points to reply more directly to your post at 66. 1. Have you read Stephen Meyer's new book Signature in the Cell? He goes into much more detail than feasible in this space. 2. Sorry, but I don't see a post by "Art Hunt" about the stereochemical theory of the origin of the genetic code, so it is difficult to respond. Was that under a different column/topic than this one? Can you point it out please? 3. If ones goal were only to explain why this codon is associated with that amino acid in a particular genetic code, even on that level the fact that there is not one universal code does present complications and added difficulty. The fact that there can be variant codes illustrates the observable independence in the 1-1 association. Other associations are possible. (I believe Meyer looks at these issues.) 4. My main objective, however, is to point you toward a deeper and more serious obstacle. This is why I am not particularly concerned about what you call 1-1 associations. Even if they could take place in some isolated sense, perhaps because X chemically prefers to bind with Y rather than Z, that does not touch the issue I am raising. There are many cases in chemistry, not limited to biology, where X may prefer to bond with Y rather than Z. But that alone does not make them into a symbolic language encoding symbolic information. That only happens in biology (and the creations of intelligent agents). The question being raised is not why an amino acid is associated with this codon vs. that codon. It is about whether an undirected prebiotic material process could ever build translation machinery, such that a recipe for a functional structure could become stored in a symbolic form and later used to reproduce that functional structure. NOTE: This molecular machinery would have to be built originally in its entirety without the help of information driven construction. One cannot assume the prior existence of the very thing one whose origin one is trying to explain. That is the symbolic information hurdle I claim cannot be crossed. Do you believe the stereochemical theory of the origin of the genetic code solves this deeper problem? If so, how? 5. It is not by mere fiat that I say 1-1 associations don't provide the symbolic information processing I describe. Such associations are not functioning as a symbolic language until they are used for functional translation, i.e. a working system for reproduction of functional structures from separate symbolically encoded information. That is what makes mere objects into symbols. DNA base sequences can code for proteins they do not even touch because a translation system can reliably convert their specified sequence information into proteins. But could that machinery and system be constructed without the help of translation machinery driven by symbolic information? Without direction or investigator coercion, how far would isolated strand replication of RNA go toward that goal of a complete integrated and consistent system? Is that a reasonable expectation? 6. Do you claim that functional proteins developed before or after the invention of a working code for representing amino acid sequences using codons? If before, how were proteins created without the help of that system? If after, how did such a system develop to encode recipes for functional amino acid structures that did not yet exist? How does a mindless system develop to pursue future uses?ericB_{October 3, 2009
October
10
Oct
3
03
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, Perhaps this illustration will help. Think about how a fax machine uses symbolic information. An image that exists at one spot on the globe is reproduced at another. Nevertheless, it is not the visual image that is transmitted. Rather, the electrical signals carry the equivalent symbolic information needed to instruct the other fax machine on how to recreate the visual image. Notice that the electrical signals does not have the chemical or physical properties of the image. Apart from the existence of a destination fax machine that can translate them back into the image, those signals have no functional value at all. Likewise, the receiving fax machine would be useless for its designed function if there did not also exist sending fax machines that follow the same conventions, as well as having the means to transmit the information faithfully. It is this kind of process of information encoding, transmission, decoding and reconstruction of the realized representation that is beyond the reach of undirected mindless chemical processes to invent and construct. They have no need for it, nor any observed unaided inclination toward it.ericB_{October 3, 2009
October
10
Oct
3
03
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Mr ericB, You are just repeating your assertions at this point. Art Hunt's post made reference to the stereochemical theory of the origin of the genetic code, how do you respond to that? It seems that you are just by fiat declaring 1-1 associations to not be information.Nakashima_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

Nakashima at 64, I believe that the unfortunate vagueness of words like "association" can unintentionally hide crucial distinctions -- distinctions that make a transition to symbolic information impossible for undirected prebiotic processes. There are many ways that chemicals might bond. But even if we might generously suppose or imagine various combinations, that would be to no benefit. There is a qualitative threshold that is not crossed. It is not closer to translation. To say that one has implemented a code for symbolic information means that one can accomplish translation between symbolic information and the realized structure it represents. To get to translation, one needs not merely chemical bonds or chemical associations, but rather translation machinery that can reliably implement a process whereby the recipe for a structure has been captured by encoding it into a sequence of symbols with the ability to also later traverse that sequence and recreate the intended structure. This is something different in kind from the many undirected ways that chemicals naturally bind together. An undirected binding simply is what it is. It doesn't mean anything more. It doesn't represent something other than itself. It is simply itself -- variations on the theme of A is connected with B (or sometimes not connected). Does A represent B or B represent A? Neither. They are just more chemical compounds. Would undirected processes construct translation machinery and use it to encode and then decode symbolic information? Consider that this machinery must be constructed and reproduced without the benefit of symbolic information, e.g. by the kind of strand replication that RNA might be able to achieve. But that path is not sustainable to the level of such machines, even if it could work for a strand of RNA. Chemical processes are not pursuing such a goal. The requirements of chemistry can be fulfilled with useless tars and goo. We have no scientific reason, either empirical or theoretical, upon which to rest a faith that the nature of undirected chemical processes is to work toward information driven chemical construction machines. Because Ada Lovelace could use imagination, she was able to write programs for Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine -- even though the engine did not yet exist. But chemical processes cannot use imagination, and cannot be expected to develop complex translation machinery in a universe where no symbolic information exists to be translated, or to design such information in a universe that cannot yet translate it, or even to use both to encode for functional chemical structures (e.g. proteins) that do not exist.ericB_{October 2, 2009
October
10
Oct
2
02
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Mr ericB, Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm traveling myself, and I know it is difficult to maintain continuity in the conversation. I agree that evolution before the first cell must mean something else than change in allele frequencies. With respect to chemical evolution of RNA, at least we can count the variants and how often they appear. A discussion of the evolution of vesicles involves more handwaving, I think. ;) By focusing on aaRS molecules, I'm trying to add clarity by specificity to the discussion. I understand your position (and Mr. BiPed's, I think) is that the genetic code could not have evolved. If I understand you correctly, even if amino acids could be created pre-biotically, and even if RNA could be created pre-biotically, a regular association of RNA sequences with amino acids could not have evolved. For example, there could never have been a wobbly loose association of some sequence of RNA bases with a broad category of amino acids (such as hydrophilic AAs) that became more specific over time. I think that if these associations were looser, then the rest of the circuitry would have been looser as well - the ribosome would have been simpler, more prone to error, jamming, running backwards, whatever. But that is my position. Am I correct that you don't think any of that was possible?Nakashima_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Nakashima at 52, I'm using someone else's computer, so this will have to be brief. The idea of structures evolving is itself problematic before you have living cells. Replication of RNA molecules, even if it could be achieved by undirected processes is not the same. Nevertheless, the coding system requires much more than you mention. One needs not just the individual parts at the core of the association, but an entire functioning translation system. Plus you need not only decoding ability (such as we see now), but also encoding ability. Else, there is no encoded symbolic information for the decoding to work upon. Finally, you need to have independently created structures to be represented by the symbolic information via encoding. A mindless undirected process cannot invent the symbolic representations based on imagined realized structures. If anyone supposes that random processes can find meaningful symbolic information (rather than starting with encoding from actual models), that is hopelessly implausible. The core difficulty is that undirected material processes have no need for any of this. They don't care about or pursue symbolic representation. There is no basis upon which they can prefer pursuing the future value of such inventions.ericB_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Lutepisc @39: RickToews @ 30, you didn’t listen to the lecture, did you? (I could tell…)
You are correct: I had listened to only about 10-12 minutes. I have since made time to listen to the entire lecture. Maybe I didn't listen carefully enough, but I don't recall hearing anything that addressed the difficulties I raised with more or less dismissing the history of early Genesis. Perhaps she does so in another lecture. She's very easy on the ears, very pleasant to listen to; and I agreed with her on at least most of the "myths" she listed concerning the Hebrew Bible.RickToews_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

---nullasalus: "Thanks for the list – at least I know where you’re coming from here. Just a few comments. ---First, I am not at all sure why you’d consider Ken Miller to be a neo-thomist. If he has said word one about Aquinas (I know he’s catholic, but not every catholic knows that much about thomism), I’ve missed it. Can you point me at where he’s mentioned this?" I think you have a point about Miller, in the sense that he is probably more Kantian than Thomist. I included him because he draws heavily on and makes too much of the Thomistic idea that God can create from contingency, yet he probably does not buy into the Thomistic thought system. Indeed, it is the only quote from him coming from Aquinas that I can think of. I think I was trying to hard to find a fourth category. ----"As for Barr, considering Barrxpressly denies the ‘random’ part of Darwinism in the relevant way (see his discussion with John West), I don’t think he’d be in any “Darwinist” camp typical by normal UD measures. ‘Unguided, unplanned’ is essential for Darwinism – remove that and you’re left with something other. If you agree to that, realize this is Barr’s position." Right again. I would call Barr a "vitalist." I need to eliminate my first category, it doesnt' work. ----"All I can do is recommend Edward Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” (or at least check out his blog). I think you’d enjoy it, but it helps to illustrate why Aquinas’ teleology (and his Fifth Way in particular) is something utterly other from design in the ID sense. His objection, and the objection of some other thomists I’m aware of, is that ‘modern ID’ concedes mechanistic metaphysics – ruling out formal and final causality to begin with." That one I can't buy, but I will check it out. I think this is the same error pointed out in section 2 in different form. ----"Also, one caveat: Yes, I believe detecting ‘design’ (certainly on the level of God) is not science. Please note, I also believe detecting or declaring ‘not-design’ is -also- not science. Darwinism, insofar as it requires a complete lack of guidance (either in terms of front-loading or direct intervention) a commitment to truly random variation (as opposed to randomness for the sake of a model, etc) and otherwise is not science either." Right. I know that you take a balanced position on that one. Overall, I think the Oakes, Templeton, Feser connection is the problem and the idea that function = mechanism. Equally important, I think all these good folks need to realize that Aquinas revamped Aristotle's fourfold causality, and, included something called an examplary cause, which is the equivalent of what we call "agent" cause.StephenB_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

There's a very funny ID-oriented Dan Brown parody over here. It pokes fun at people on both sides of The Argument.PaulT_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Thanks for the list - at least I know where you're coming from here. Just a few comments. First, I am not at all sure why you'd consider Ken Miller to be a neo-thomist. If he has said word one about Aquinas (I know he's catholic, but not every catholic knows that much about thomism), I've missed it. Can you point me at where he's mentioned this? As for Barr, considering Barr expressly denies the 'random' part of Darwinism in the relevant way (see his discussion with John West), I don't think he'd be in any "Darwinist" camp typical by normal UD measures. 'Unguided, unplanned' is essential for Darwinism - remove that and you're left with something other. If you agree to that, realize this is Barr's position. All I can do is recommend Edward Feser's book "The Last Superstition" (or at least check out his blog). I think you'd enjoy it, but it helps to illustrate why Aquinas' teleology (and his Fifth Way in particular) is something utterly other from design in the ID sense. His objection, and the objection of some other thomists I'm aware of, is that 'modern ID' concedes mechanistic metaphysics - ruling out formal and final causality to begin with. Also, one caveat: Yes, I believe detecting 'design' (certainly on the level of God) is not science. Please note, I also believe detecting or declaring 'not-design' is -also- not science. Darwinism, insofar as it requires a complete lack of guidance (either in terms of front-loading or direct intervention) a commitment to truly random variation (as opposed to randomness for the sake of a model, etc) and otherwise is not science either.nullasalus_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Hi nullasals: It's been a while, and I appreciate you comments. As quick reference point, I would place the “neo-Thomists” in four categories. This is very crude and brief, but you will get the idea . [Pro Darwin: Pro Kant: The wildly unreasonable contingent] Group one will mistakenly argue that since Aquinas acknowledged that God CAN create some things through secondary causes, it follows that God DID and MUST create everything through secondary causes. In effect, they are trying to use St. Thomas, and that one reference, as a defense for Darwinism. For them, ID is incompatible with Aquinas and design is an illusion. Obviously, that doesn’t follow at all. Indeed, if Aquinas notion of Divine causality had ruled out front loaded evolution or later interventionism, it would have also ruled out his own idea that God created humans in finished form. Also, Aquinas arguments for the existence of God are the equivalent to a philosophical inference to design. Indeed, Aquinas was Mr. Design. Among those who peddle this anti-design nonsense in the name of Aquinas, we can include Stephen Barr and Ken Miller. [Anti Darwin: Anti Kant: The moderately unreasonable contingent] Group 2 of the anti-ID neo-Thomists hold that ID confuses design with final causality, or in same cases, its “nature.” Thus, for them, Aquinas discussion of what a thing is or what it was made for precludes ID’s design paradigms. Yet, those are all different arguments and none gets in the way of the other. Indeed, they are all consistent with ID. Among those who qualify we could list Edward Oakes and Thomas Heller. [Anti Darwin: Anti Kant: The quite reasonable but wrong contingent] Group 3 holds with Scripture and St. Thomas that evidence of the designer is made evident through the designers handiwork. Design is real and we can apprehend it. However, ID is not really science because design cannot be measured. Thus, group 3 is on board with the overall idea of an informal design inference, even to the point of using it for Christian apologetics, but they cannot support IDs main paradigms. Among those who qualify I would note Peter Kreeft, admittedly a wonderful philosopher, and our own nullasalus (Take a bow). [Anti Darwin: Anti Kant: The quite reasonable and also correct contingent] Group 4 is quite simply pro-ID science. I would include, among many others, Father Thomas Dubay, George Weigel, and our own VJ Torley. Suffice it to say that St. Thomas Aquinas held that we can prove the existence of God through unaided reason (without Biblical revelation) in five ways. Obviously, he believed that design was apprehendable and that we can apprehend it, which opens the door to a scientific inference to design. Nothing at all that he said can be rightly interpreted any other way. Quite the contrary; ID scientists do the very same thing with data [through science] that Aquinas did with observation [through philosophy]---they draw an inference to design.StephenB_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Footnote 2: Eric (and Prof Beckwith): The inference -- it was not directly seen by the 500+ witnesses identified -- to the resurrection of 1 Cor 15 in the first instance required an inference to design. Namely, a certain timeline was observed: a man arrested, tried, whipped, crucified, certified dead and speared in the vitals to make sure. The said man was buried in a specific tomb, which was sealed and guarded. The following Sunday night, he ate supper with his closest friends. Each of these events in themselves is non-miraculous: people ate supper all the time, they also were in those days frequently crucified if the authorities thought them a threat. Sometimes at least, victims of crucifixion in Judaea were buried -- we have the recovered skeleton of at least one such victim. But in this case, we have supper no 1 [the last supper] --> Arrest, trial, execution --> burial --> X --> Supper no 2. What was X, and what could account for it? Natural forces? [Crucified and dead men do not rise by forces of chance and necessity -- why crucifixion was so routinely used by the Romans. So, no, X was not a natural resuscitation, and the various fraud and hallucination etc theories are not even worth looking at, as well the timelines on the reports and the associated spread of the church etc make legend theories equally implausible.] X was something beyond the ordinary course of nature, and of course it fit an independent specification in Is 53 etc. X was produced by an intelligent agency, one capable of acting beyond the course of the patterns of death, that is it was a miracle. The resurrection. And, by fitting into the prophetic patterns of the OT etc, it convinced the early disciples that it was an act of God, not a malevolent power. But plainly, we see an empirically anchored inference to design at work there. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Mrs O'Leary: A footnote. So long as the fundamentalist preacher is arguing that women need to be saved, he directly implies that they have souls to be saved. (And, needing to be saved starts with Mary, who rejoiced in God her Saviour.) On the general point, the Biblical teaching is explicit that the essential unity of the human race transcends sex, class and race etc. The argument put up by your child's teacher was a strawman, laced with nasty ad hominems, pure and simple. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

O'Leary (54), Quite a coincidence you mention Therese of Lisieux - I saw her relics just like week on their current tour of Britain.Gaz_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 46, writes, "Here is the real issue: ID is good science that is being attacked not just by atheists, but also by bad Christian philosophers, comprised largely of misguided and incompetent NeoThomists, spewing out the bizarre doctrine that ID cannot be reconciled with Thomistic causality when, in fact, the two, understood properly, make beautiful music together. Strange as it seems, the most vocal neo-Thomists are not really Thomists at all—they are Kantians posing as Thomists. If they ever make it to heaven, St. Thomas will be waiting there for them with a bucket of Gatorade." Yes, that has been my impression too. The real Thomas Aquinas would be astounded to discover what is proclaimed in his name by theistic evolutionists today. The real Thomas Aquinas? Glad you asked. (Okay, so you didn't. but ... ) Hey, a story! Once, about twenty years ago, one of my kids came home from school and informed me that in the 19th century, the Catholic Church had a debate about whether women had souls. (Her religious studies teacher was anxious to undermine the students' faith, so he told them ... well, you get the picture.) I informed the kid that this could not possibly be true. She challenged me to prove it. I said I didn't need to prove it. I said, approximately: Thomas Aquinas put Catholic theology on a philosophical footing in the thirteenth century, and the debate her teacher alleged would make no sense to any Catholic whatever in the 19th century. Did people in the 19th century really believe that, for example, Therese of Lisieux (the Little Flower) did not have a soul? That Mary, the mother of Jesus, did not have a soul? Now, some fundamentalist somewhere might be pounding a pulpit into splinters claiming that the Bible doesn't say women have souls, so maybe they don't. But Catholic theology is founded on reason, tradition, and evidence as well as the witness of Scripture. Thomas Aquinas is in large part responsible for preventing many foolish, useless, or harmful controversies by his organization of doctrine along Aristotelian lines. But I would be very interested to hear if he ever said that the universe or life forms show no evidence of design.O'Leary_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

"The genetic code is implemented by the existence and specificity of these molecules." And those molecules exist in the cell as a result of the information encoded in the sequencing of DNA. The translation system works, as designated by the program.Upright BiPed_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Mr ericB, In specific, are you saying that aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases cannot have evolved? The aaRS molecules are the ones that match specific amino acids to anticodon triplets. The genetic code is implemented by the existence and specificity of these molecules.Nakashima_{October 1, 2009
October
10
Oct
1
01
2009
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Wonderfully written post, ericB.Upright BiPed_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Nakashima at 49, Just heading off, but a quick response. Undirected natural processes may be fully adequate for aspects of nature that are comprised of only order or random complexity. For that, chance plus law/necessity may be sufficient (and so science has found them to be adequate for such things as you mention). Specified complexity is not adequately explained by law plus chance. Symbolic information is even worse, since it combines specified complexity with the additional component of symbolic meaning that is extrinsic to the symbols and is specified through an external code (e.g. a genetic code). Symbolic information, such as found in cells, is a feature that physical and chemical law plus chance cannot cope with, regardless of the time allowed. As to what else in nature may require something more than undirected processes, some would point to features such as the fine tuning of the universe as one example outside of biology. Whether undirected processes are sufficient or not would, of course, need to be evaluated in each context on its own merits. The point is that for science to be healthy, it must treat the sufficiency of undirected material processes as a hypothesis subject to empirical evidence, not as an axiom to be held with blind faith allegiance regardless of the evidence.ericB_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Mr ericB, The practice of science must be changed to allow serious consideration of the possibility of intelligent agency, particularly (but not only) in regard to the origin and development of life. Can you give an example of where else in science intelligent agency deserves serious consideration? While past performance is no indication of future results, we no longer give intelligent agency serious consideration in lightning or planetary motion.Nakashima_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

fbeckwith @ 16: "However, what I am suggesting is that it is intel-lectually irresponsibile to offer Christians, especially prospective clergy, ID as the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism that a Christian may authentically embrace, as these conferences seem to do." If one refers to a Darwinian materialism in the broad sense, there is a simple reason why ID is in fact necessarily the only "the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism," but the reason has nothing to do with whether one adheres to Christianity. Materialism requires a solution for the origin and development of life by undirected material processes, i.e. via Darwinism of some kind (with details to be worked out eventually). [Phil Johnson has correctly pointed out that the unwavering confidence some attach to Darwinism comes in large measure because materialism requires that some version of it is true.] It is necessarily the case that the only alternative involves a directed process, i.e. the participation of intelligent agency or design. The origin and development of life is either entirely undirected, or else it involves something that is not undirected, i.e. some contribution that is directed. Those two alternative categories logically exhaust all possibilities. The practice of science must be changed to allow serious consideration of the possibility of intelligent agency, particularly (but not only) in regard to the origin and development of life. However, the reason does not depend on whether or not one perceives this to be needed to prop up any theological perspective. Atheists will always have the option of supposing the intelligence is natural rather than supernatural. Regardless of theological considerations, mindless material processes are simply and inherently inadequate as a causal basis for explaining the symbolic information at the foundation of biological life. It doesn't matter if one's theology doesn't need ID. Mindless material processes cannot invent symbolic information. Not in a billion years. Not in the history of the universe. So it is fine if you realize that theology does not need ID. Science needs ID because mindless matter is inadequate to the task. Intelligence causation is the only adequate cause for the reality that science must deal with. Sooner or later, progress in science requires letting go of the old paradigm and embracing this reality. This being so, it is quite appropriate to point this out to Christians or anyone else who is interested in these issues. But you are quite right that Christianity has never depended on the appearance of ID within science to establish its case. Christianity stands or falls with the historical physical resurrection of Jesus, as the apostle Paul has already observed (1 Cor. 15).ericB_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't think neo-thomists are saying ID "can't be reconciled with thomistic causality". I think they're saying that ID is different, fundamentally different, from the sort of teleology Aquinas was talking about. I haven't even seen neo-thomists who claim ID is wrong (save for caricatures of ID, namely 'Evolution is all a lie!' or 'The world is 6000 years old!') - at most they say that, persuasive or not, it's not science. That said, I do think there are plenty of Christians who give ID a bad rap. Francis Beckwith, however, gave some pretty tame, reasonable criticisms of ID as a movement, at least if what he perceives is correct. (And keep in mind he was fully onboard with ID at one point, so he can't be one of those 'neo-thomists' who think ID and thomism is just plain incompatible.)nullasalus_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

----SteveFuller: “But ID’s rhetorical failures are not addressed by denying the significance of theism – especially of the Abrahamic variety – in fuelling the ID conceptual imagination. To be a bit provocative, that would be a bit like Black people trying to appear more ‘White’ in some effort to appease racist bigots, as was common in the first half of the last century. It’s unnecessary and it doesn’t work.” I don’t think anyone here would disagree that ID provides plenty of evidence that a Christian can identify with and find consoling. Indeed, Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20 sound much like what we call a design inference, except for the data-oriented paradigms and measurements. The point is that we don’t want people confusing ID implications, which are clearly theological, and ID’s methodology, which, even if inspired by a Christian world view, [what real science isn’t?] has nothing at all to do with religion in terms of the way it goes about its business. ---"[ID] admits that science and theology are both addressing the one reality that we – believers and unbelievers – all inhabit." Right you are, but the emphasis must be put in the right place. The point, it seems to me, is less about who ID is for and more about what it is potentially in the context of the big picture---namely, one aspect of the truth, which is, itself, unified, and which does not admit of fragmentation. To say that there is one truth for science and another for religion, is to say that there is no such thing as objective truth at all. Unity of truth is the issue and that is the point that should be emphasized--- a philosophical argument that should be made right along with ID science, but NOT AS THE SAME ARGUMENT. Some philosophers, such as Dembski, have already made the necessary distinctions, but, as we all know, when he does, his enemies respond by trying to tie ID methodology to the Christian faith. Those who refuse to make the distinction between ID science and the personal faith of its believers, or refuse to press it in the face of Darwinist lies, retard ID’s progress. Here is the real issue: ID is good science that is being attacked not just by atheists, but also by bad Christian philosophers, comprised largely of misguided and incompetent NeoThomists, spewing out the bizarre doctrine that ID cannot be reconciled with Thomistic causality when, in fact, the two, understood properly, make beautiful music together. Strange as it seems, the most vocal neo-Thomists are not really Thomists at all---they are Kantians posing as Thomists. If they ever make it to heaven, St. Thomas will be waiting there for them with a bucket of Gatorade.StephenB_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller, at 42 and 43, I object to all three groups you excoriate, but as an old lady living in a densely packed urban centre I am most suspicious of possible suicide bombers. (= "God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others"? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.) As a traditional Catholic Christian, I am not concerned about humanity's Darwinian fitness. We'll get by. We always do. I think there is a limited role for Darwinism in trimming off Pekineses and Pomeranians from the wolf pack, but this limited role has been inappropriately inflated into a secular religion, guarded by legalism, court rulings, and frantic "secular" lobbies. I sure don't see any use for that.O'Leary_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Clive (#32)
I asked for any other similar stories of notable people who lost their faith as a result of materialistic presuppositions of science, and, I reckon, we could add the philosophy of scientism. Anyone you may know of and want to share their story?
Don't know if this was quite what you were looking for, but these links might interest you. Celebrity Atheists The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics by Glenn Morton. http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=196 God's Funeral: The Birth of Modern Science and the Death of Faith: An Interview with A.N. Wilson (2007) by Karl Giberson and Don Yerxa. Lutepisc (#39) Thanks for the information about Professor Hayes. I guess I should have watched the video rather than reading the transcript.vjtorley_{September 30, 2009
September
09
Sep
30
30
2009
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

In case the point of the last post was not crystal clear, it's by no means obvious that the pursuit and application of science has increased humanity's 'Darwinian fitness', which has to do simply with the avoidance of extinction. If anything, it has put us increasingly at risk -- but a risk that we somehow believe is worth taking. Why is that, do you suppose?Steve Fuller_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Denyse, you certainly have a point about the evolutionary psychology research agenda operating on the assumption that religion is some kind of pathology or aberration that needs to be explained, if not actively treated. But I wouldn't mind it so much if the overriding value we place on science were also treated as a case of such 'deep deviance'. After all, what eugenicists, suicide bombers and industrial polluters (and I have deliberately listed three groups, at least one of which everyone will find offensive) have in common is not a theological world-view but a scientifically informed capability.Steve Fuller_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Steve Fuller wrote, " ... science and theology are both addressing the one reality that we – believers and unbelievers – all inhabit. Theology is not simply a discipline for and about believers. It is for and about everyone, just as science is. I realize that this may be a scary thought because it brings to mind the idea of theology as akin to medicine, with non-believers treated as ill." Well, in the last century, it has always almost worked the other way around = Soviet teatment of religious dissidents, by giving them disorienting drugs - look, this really happened, okay? In Canada, it meant government funding for extremists to raise cain with traditional clergy who teach the established Christian view re the gay lifestyle. Added: In fairness, we are fighting back hard. And - I assume your time is better used elsewhere - if you listen to the nonsense pouring out of "evolutionary psychology", it certainly is happening now, as theorists compete with each other to come up with nonsense that "explains" spirituality. It feels to me like a scandal - government funding of quackery, aimed at control? Doesn't the United States have a First Amendment that requires the government to neither establish a religion or permit its free exercise? But that should NOT mean funding materialist atheism.O'Leary_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Thank you Denyse.Clive Hayden_{September 29, 2009
September
09
Sep
29
29
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply