Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

_{Vincent Torley

October 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments

"I think KF’s statement at 94 is the crux of the matter here." woops, that should read 194.CannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

molch, I think KF's statement at 94 is the crux of the matter here. I have warrant for my belief in the resurrection. I have no warrant, nor do I believe there can be any warrant for a belief in reincarnation in the same way as my warrant for the resurrection, for the reasons I've already stated in my last post addressed to you. Now just for the sake of the discussion, I did look into certain claimed evidences for reincarnation. You will find that a certain Ian Stevenson-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research --conducted research into reincarnation. He essentially conducted several decades of interviews with children who allegedly claimed to have memories of a past life. So far so good, and quite intriguing. However, I also discovered another report here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/reincarnation_a.html A report of a sensationalized account of one such child, who allegedly claimed to have memories of a past life. I can't determine by this that all such claims are to be dismissed in the way this skeptiko report does. I also understand that this report comes from individuals who may use similar procedures to dismiss the resurrection. However, given the comparison of witness I summed up in my last post, the methodology (which is really the best you can have in this case) lacks the substance of the witness for Jesus' resurrection as accounted in the gospels. The issue is another body and not the same body. Children can have frightful dreams, which already convinced adults can interpret as memories of a past life, and lead a child into believing that such "memories" are in fact evidence that they once lived another life. Furthermore, Stevenson contended that birth marks on the alleged reincarnated individual correspond with wounds on the alleged person who died and was reincarnated. This is where such "evidence" begins to sound unreasonable. If a person is reincarnated - as in a soul placed in another body entirely, why should one even assume that the other alleged reincarnated individual's body could have any correlation to the body in which they allegedly died? The body is dead and buried. I suggest that this speculation is intended to lend more physical evidence for the accounts than is actually there, because Stevenson understood that testimony about past lives was not enough to make his studies compelling. I think Stevenson understood the dilemma, and he compensated for it through speculation about birth marks, which is very telling in consideration of the evidence for the resurrection; without a connection to the actual body, you have nothing. Now, I have no knowledge of other attempts to prove reincarnation. However, this is besides the point. The issue is not in other evidence, but the nature of any alleged evidence - you still have the same problem with trying to show that a person with one body is the exact same person as one with another body. This is why I don't believe reincarnation can have the same compelling witness as can a resurrection - even if the resurrection itself is indeed false. Seemingly corresponding birth marks to a wound on a dead body can have other explanations - namely coincidence, given that a person can be falsely led to believe that elements of dreams are in fact memories. In other words, the physical evidence can be forced to support the premise based on alleged memories that are manipulated in a child as actual memories, and not simply elements of a dream, which correspond to the child's real life experiences of having visited a museum. So onto the issue of two competing truth claims, once again: Let's put it this way: we have two competing truth claims. You have reason to believe that both claims are false, or at least that neither offers enough evidence to compel you to believe. Is it possible that the evidence used to justify belief in one of the truth claims can be more compelling than evidence used to justify belief in the other? I think this is where your premise lies, because you believe that both reincarnation and resurrection contain no compelling evidence, which would warrant your belief in either - that is given that you don't believe in reincarnation, which you haven't here claimed either way. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that because both of these have no compelling evidence to cause you to believe, their claims to truth are equal. I would suggest that this is not the case - that the differences between the specifics of the truth claims make one more compelling than the other based on the evidence provided for one, and the impossibility of similar evidence for the other, even if overall (in your view), neither claim compels you to believe on warrant. This is so not only because of the issues already raised, but because you have not offered up any reasonable reference or argument on which to dismiss either claim. I have. Now do you want to go ahead and share with us why you don't find either claim, or one or the other compelling?CannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Thanks, BA This brings us to: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/particularism.html William Lane Craig's articles on Christian Particularism. Here's some more: http://www.leaderu.com/focus/oneway.htmlCannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

kf and StephenB, perhaps molch also, this video may be of interest,, Kevin Lewis: The Theological Coherence of Christian Particularism - Biola University Chapel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20tgTdC4nQc description of video: One of the top apologetics questions people ask is why there is only one way of salvation. Once the doctrine of salvation is correctly identified as forgiveness and reconciliation with our Creator, it becomes clear there is only one way to accomplish this: by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone! P.S. I quoted part of your 188 entry.. classic StephenB to the point.bornagain77_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

molch, Belief in reincarnation can be supported by evidence. However, such evidence cannot warrant a belief in reincarnation in the same way as belief in the resurrection can be warranted by the evidence of one verifiable incident of resurrection in the historical account of jesus' resurrection, supported by prophecy and witness, in addition to other testimony to the veracity of the witness. Reincarnation would have to have just such a degree of witness as is accounted for in scripture. In other words, a person who alleges to have been reincarnated would need to have the same level of witness (and prophecy, mind you) to make such a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not say such a case has not happened - although I am unaware of any such case - but that it reasonably cannot happen. Here's why: A person dies, and a person now living alleges to be that person reincarnated in a different body. Now this is the key here, because as we see with the resurrection, Jesus was not reincarnated in a different body, but was resurrected in the same body. Therefore, the witnesses who knew Jesus were able to verify with their eyes that what they saw was the Jesus they knew. Also, since several were involved with the burial of Jesus, they were able to verify that the person they saw with their eyes alive was the same Jesus they verified as dead and buried. The gospel accounts are very clear on this. There were not only witnesses to the crucifixion and the death of Jesus, but some of those very same witnesses, including Mary and Martha were witnesses to the empty tomb and the presence of the identifiable resurrected Jesus among them, who spoke to them and showed them the nail marks on his hands. Such is not the case with reincarnation because reincarnation necessitates another body; which cannot be identified in the same way as Jesus. And this is the key issue here. Therefore, for you to suggest that a believer in reincarnation can in any meaningful way have evidence that a person was reincarnated in the same way as in the witness of Jesus' resurrection, is categorically false. Now you rightly stated that either resurrection is true or reincarnation is true, or both are false. Both can be false, but both cannot be true at the same time. If one is true, the other is false. I have reasonable evidence that one is true, which makes it reasonable to suggest that the other is false.CannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

PS: oops got a bit garbled -- it happens: "can you show us why someone who is justified (or worse, possibly even warranted) to conclude that he accepts the Christian faith as true, is not therefore further justified to accept that on first principles of right reason, he cannot simultaneously agree that he is obligated to simply accept or treat as equally justified that which cuts across such justified (or even warranted) conclusions?"kairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Molch: Your silence on the subject of providing a summary of the core warrant for your atheistic worldview is beginning to be interestingly revealing. So is the increasingly relativistic tone of several remarks. The law of non-contradiction, last I checked, is a self-evident truth and first principle of right reason. Is this conclusion warranted -- and I use warrant in the fairly common philosophical sense to denote that he grounds are objective by contrast with the subjectivity that is often associated with "justification" -- or not? And, on inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties, how is your atheist conclusion better warranted than generic theism? On what grounds are you able to conclude that the warranting case (cf. 101 introduction here) for the Christian form of the Judaeo-Christian worldview fails? Beyond that, can you show us why someone who is justified (or worse, possibly even warranted) to conclude that he accepts the Christian faith as true, is not therefore further justified to accept that on first principles of right reason, he cannot simultaneously agree that he is not obligated to simply accept that which cuts across such justified (or even warranted) conclusions? Though, on Christian principles of charity, he is obligated to respect the persons who may hold diverse views. (Respect for persons is not to be confused with agreement with views or refusal to engage the challenge of warrant.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

---molch: "I wish you happiness in your confidence. If you would have actually wished to confirm your claims, I am sure you would have e-mailed me by now to find out." Why would I want to retire to a private forum to confirm that which has already been made evident on a public forum? I ask you for specifics, and you evade the challenge; I offer specifics of my own, and you ignore the arguments.StephenB_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "By virtue of your silence on the matter, we can be confident that you have no rational principles with which to evaluate evidence, make truth claims, or build a case for anything. By virtue of your silence on the matter, and your lack of specificity, we can be confident that, in spite of your claims to the contrary, you are not familiar enough with the arguments for the Christian God to claim that you have considered them and found them wanting." I wish you happiness in your confidence. If you would have actually wished to confirm your claims, I am sure you would have e-mailed me by now to find out.molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Well then, StephenB joins the chorus of claiming a universal negative: "No other religious world view invites, or can survive, rational scrutiny." Let's hear KF on that one again: “Now, too, the fraction of what is knowable that any one individual or group can actually know to demonstrative or even moral certainty, is so small that a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no [x]. So, as just noted, a little epistemological humility is called for.”molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

“The resurrection of Jesus is one such verifiable incident of resurrection. I am not aware of any verifiable incident of reincarnation. BOTH CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRUE” is simply a new version of: “I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth” So, you have not made any progress toward "warranting" that non-Christian world-views are categorically unwarranted. After searching through your comments I found that you indeed seem to agree with KF on the problem of asserting universal negatives - in 92 you say: "You have the problem of trying to prove a negative,..." but please correct me if I misunderstood that. But if this is indeed your position, then, even according to your own standards, you obviously haven't proven that "Reincarnation is justified, but is not warranted." - because your unawareness of warrant is, under your own and KF's rules, obviously no proof that there is none.molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

---molch to CY: “Explaining why you think your belief in the Judeo-Christian god is supported by good evidence does absolutely nothing to justify either the claim that beliefs in other world-views are categorically NOT based on evidence, or alternatively, that the uncounted pieces of evidence for the uncounted varieties of other world-views are categorically less valuable than your pieces of evidence without you ever having to look at them.” CY has sufficiently explained why that is not the case. However, I don't hesitate to also point out that a comprehensive knowledge of comparative religion is commonplace among many Christians. There is much historical and reasoned-based evidence to support the Christian God. Indeed, Christianity is based on a rational foundation and invites rational scrutiny. No other religious world view invites, or can survive, rational scrutiny. This principle is just as true of the leaders themselves. Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other relgious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings. I should also hasten to point out that Christianity can supply and explain the foundations for the reasoned arguments that it employs, namely the first principles of right reason. By virtue of your silence on the matter, we can be confident that you have no rational principles with which to evaluate evidence, make truth claims, or build a case for anything. By virtue of your silence on the matter, and your lack of specificity, we can be confident that, in spite of your claims to the contrary, you are not familiar enough with the arguments for the Christian God to claim that you have considered them and found them wanting.StephenB_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

CY: "BOTH CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRUE." I agree. It is possible that either one is true, or the other, or that they are both false. "I am not aware of any verifiable incident of reincarnation." So, your "unawareness" of any verifiable incident of re-incarnation gives you the authority to claim categorically that it doesn't exist? Sounds a lot like: I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of brown swans, so I claim categorically that brown swans don't exist. KF summarized why he didn't like that kind of argument earlier: "Now, too, the fraction of what is knowable that any one individual or group can actually know to demonstrative or even moral certainty, is so small that a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no [x]. So, as just noted, a little epistemological humility is called for." And: "For instance, no number of observations of white swans can show beyond doubt that a black swan does not or cannot exist. Just so, a finite, fallible creature with bounded rationality faces a bind when trying to assert a universal negative." I was under the impression that you agreed with him. Maybe I was wrong.molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

CY and KF: replacing justification with warrant changes absolutely nothing in respect to the question at hand: Why this statement: I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth …should be warranted only if y is a deity (preferably the Christian one). And: “there are lots of Christians, just like there are lots of Hindus, etc. who have more of an experiential than an evidential form of faith. But just like you again correctly point out that is not true for EVERY Christian, it likewise does not allow you to categorically claim that this is the case for EVERY non-Christian and EVERY non-Christian truth claim, as you indeed do.” And: “Explaining why you think your belief in the Judeo-Christian god is supported by good evidence does absolutely nothing to warrant either the claim that beliefs in other world-views are categorically NOT based on evidence, or alternatively, that the uncounted pieces of evidence for the uncounted varieties of other world-views are categorically less valuable than your pieces of evidence without you ever having to look at them.”molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

KF, Thanks for the clarification and distinction between warrant and justification. Anybody can justify anything, but not all justifications are warranted. Christianity is not only justified, it is warranted. Reincarnation is justified, but is not warranted.CannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

molch, others, "'I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth' …should be justifiable only by a Christian. …nor does your 171 address anything else I said in 166. Instead, you go right back to justifying your own world-view. Which I never challenged." Oh, but you have challenged my world-view by charging that it must be warranted by the same criteria as your own - which is apparently relativism. I am not a relativist. I believe that certain truths are absolute. Such truths are self-evident - namely certain laws of logic, which are necessarily true in order for anything depending on them to be true. Relativists depend on the rules of logic, but they deny that they are self-evident. In fact, recently I linked to several atheist and relativist websites. It is no surprise that on one of them, in their article on logic, they completely overlook the rules of logic, while concentrating on logical fallacies. In other words, relativists who do not believe the rules of logic are valid, have no basis for declaring ANYTHING as a fallacy. The truth of Christianity in relation to reincarnation is established upon one of those self-evident truths, and it is the law of the of the excluded middle. Either Christianity is true or reincarnation is true. It's not an issue of relative truth, but of absolute. Therefore, since I have evidence that Christianity is true, the proposition of reincarnation, that souls are placed in OTHER corporeal bodies after death, is incompatible with the claims of Christianity, which says that souls remain in the SAME resurrected corporeal bodies after death. BOTH CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRUE. Furthermore, for either resurrection or reincarnation to be true, either must be evidenced by at least one verifiable incident of the respective phenomenon. The resurrection of Jesus is one such verifiable incident of resurrection. I am not aware of any verifiable incident of reincarnation. In fact, the incidents of reincarnation, which have been suggested in scientific studies, namely the studies from the late parapsychologist Ian Stevenson cannot be verified.CannuckianYankee_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Molch: Justification and warrant are different, in this context. It is objective warrant rather than subjective justification that is at stake here. (We have it on very good source that ultimate subjective justification is the preserve of a higher authority. And, oddly enough the most likely to be justified there are exactly the ones who see themselves as not deserving to be.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

CY: “I never said that someone is not allowed to believe what they believe.” I never accused you of not allowing people to believe what they believe. I critisized your claim that non-Christians categorically are not JUSTIFIED to believe what they believe. None of what you said in 171 is an answer to why this statement: “I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth” ...should be justifiable only by a Christian. …nor does your 171 address anything else I said in 166. Instead, you go right back to justifying your own world-view. Which I never challenged. I am not interested in the slightest in your justifications for your worldview. They are just as irrelevant to the question at hand as my justifications for my worldview. Here is one the many versions of the question at hand that you still fail to address: "there are lots of Christians, just like there are lots of Hindus, etc. who have more of an experiential than an evidential form of faith. But just like you again correctly point out that is not true for EVERY Christian, it likewise does not allow you to categorically claim that this is the case for EVERY non-Christian and EVERY non-Christian truth claim, as you indeed do." It seems necessary to repeat this, yet again: "Explaining why you think your belief in the Judeo-Christian god is supported by good evidence does absolutely nothing to justify either the claim that beliefs in other world-views are categorically NOT based on evidence, or alternatively, that the uncounted pieces of evidence for the uncounted varieties of other world-views are categorically less valuable than your pieces of evidence without you ever having to look at them."molch_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

F/N 3: An interesting illustration of what happens when the first principles of right reason are rejected or neglected (as is common with Neo-Atheists and those influenced by them or by similar teachings):
[M to CY,166:] Explaining why you think your belief in the Judeo-Christian god [oh, how often there is the begrudging of a capital letter!] is supported by good evidence does absolutely nothing to justify either the claim that beliefs in other world-views are categorically NOT based on evidence, or alternatively, that the uncounted pieces of evidence for the uncounted varieties of other world-views are categorically less valuable than your pieces of evidence without you ever having to look at them . . . . What I AM doing is criticize YOUR charge of failure in justification of ANY non-Christian world-view claiming that their justifications CATEGORICALLY fail . . .
a --> This argument rests on implicit rejection of the principle of non-contradiction [A and NOT-A cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, truth being understood as accurate reference to reality], multiplied by refusal to examine/ a priori rejection of the positive evidence for the Christian faith. Or else -- and more likely, a selectively applied radical relativism that is just as much a rejection of the first principles of right reason. b --> My reason for this comment, is that if the positive case for the core Christian faith [as is summarised in the AD 55 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 and prophesied in the 700 BC Isa 52:12 - 53:13, and multiplied by the direct experience of millions of life-transforming encounter with God in the face of the risen Christ] is well-warranted and credibly true, then you have good reason to reject anything that contradicts that. (M has in fact applied same concept in claiming that since he has -- presumably on claimed good grounds [though he has been a bit non-forthcoming on the grounds] -- concluded atheism, he rejects what differs from it. Thus, my remarks on selective application just above.) c --> In short, well-warranted positive evidence for the truth of the core Christian faith is a decisive defeater for that which contradicts it. As, would decisive positive evidence for atheism, or pantheism etc. d --> The positive evidence for the Christian faith has already been linked. Onlookers are invited to examine for themselves. e --> Such does not contradict the concept that people in other situations or traditions may or may not have real experiences of God. Indeed, the explicit teaching of the core NT theology is that just such happens to every sufficiently competent person to be reasonable:
Rom 1:19 . . . what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse . . . . Rom 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
f --> The creation of the world, our consciousness, the power of mind and the presence of conscience jointly testify to our Creator. We may also have personal experiences of the transcendent. We may accept such evidence and experiences, reject them, or misunderstand them; usually we have a blend of all three. (That's why straight thinking in light of right reason and well warranted evidence is so important in untwisting our sometimes ever so easily confused or deceived minds and hearts. Such corrective resources are sufficiently available and accessible that we have no excuse.) g --> So, the proper place to begin is (i) the common evidence that we have, which grounds theism as the best explanation of the world as we experience it, and (ii) the positive evidence for the core gospel, which grounds the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and risen Saviour, also the related acceptance of the NT and OT of the Bible as an authentic record of the gospel and the instructions of God for life. h --> Of course, if there is in fact good warrant for say evolutionary materialistic atheism, then that would be good warrant to reject the existence of God, Jesus, the Bible and the gospel. But, such warrant has to be shown not merely asserted or mistakenly believed on inadequate evidence. i --> One of the worst consequences of believing an unwarranted and false worldview -- and of course, Christians provide reasons why the faith is not merely subjective opinion but well warranted, and credibly true -- is that because we accept it, we are inclined to reject that which is true on the grounds of its contradiction to what we THINK is true. In fact, Jesus warned some people in his day who were in a sad case indeed on precisely this problem:
Jn 8: 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say . . . 45 . . . because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! . . . 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
j --> Of course, a big part of M's view above is that he thinks that his atheism is well warranted and so he can afford to reject other claims that differ, then can cast the claimed support for the one as an objection to the other: you Christians reject gods a through y, we only add z. k --> This is why we have repeatedly invited M to at least put forth the core warranting case for his atheism, so far with no luck. Similarly, others may bring forth their best case. Thence, comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. l --> But, for that to work, there needs to be a sound appreciation that when we claim to know, we are accepting something as so [i.e. believing it], based on its degree of warrant that in our view makes it credibly true. m --> Which opens up the issue of whether the subjective justification we believe we have is objectively warranted. (And if one struggles with this, then one will struggle with everything else connected to the issue of knowledge.) ____________________________ SUBNOTE: In a sense, I wish there was no necessity of addressing such matters in an Intelligent Design blog, as the exercise above invites the twisting of words and context into the slander that equates inference to design on evidence with Biblical Creationism and an imagined would-be tyrannical religious agenda of theocracy (all of which BTW are corrected in the UD Weak Argument Correctives, top right this and every UD page). I will note that the inference to design on the empirical warrant that digitally coded functionally specific complex information is a reliable signature of intelligence [notice how there are no exceptions that are credible] leads to the inference that cell based life on earth is designed. The onward inference from the fine-tuned operating point of our observed cosmos that supports such life, to the design of our observed cosmos, empirically grounds an inference to an extra cosmic, intelligent and powerful designer who intended that such life exist. With the generic theistic arguments considered as inferences to best explanation, this warrants that someone would be a theist, in a generic sense [as Flew became when he accepted the design case: a Deist, not a Christian]. That I am a Christian, specifically, is based on a different set of concerns, the positive evidence for the core Gospel, and the argument runs on very different evidence, as has been outlined and linked above. I trust that those who come here or monitor here as critics will have the courtesy to acknowledge the significant differences. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: An interesting podcast (mainly on the Cosmological argument) by Frank Turek.kairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

F/N: CARM has a useful index page on atheism themes, neatly counter-balancing Infidels dot org's introductions here. It is highly significant, BTW, that the logo on the American Atheists site is a sun-and-planets picture of the atom, i.e. the flag that they fly is "science," i.e. evolutionary materialism. The other major atheist arguments primarily ring off the problem of evil [a bit out of date, post Plantinga, though I have seen some rhetorical distortions of P's point (e.g. equating a defence with a theodicy) that work to make the ill-informed think his case was answered or is ridiculous], and the "no evidence," selectively hyperskeptical evidentialist claim. Here are some excerpts from CARM's definitional survey: __________________ >>Whichever definition you accept, atheism denies God. * "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god." * "An atheist lacks belief in a god." * "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all." * "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." * "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas." [These all ring off the point that they recognise that to make a universal negative claim to know there is no God, while being finite and fallible with an extremely limited knowledge base, and with the old "evil exposes a contradiction in the idea of God" argument shot down by Plantinga a generation ago, they have to use a weak form definition.] [ . . . ] Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where the athiest believes that the idea of God's existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one position says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that God exists, and the other position says the evidence is contrary to God's existence. [ . . . ] there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt . . . The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods. 1. There is no God or devil. 2. There is no supernatural realm. 3. Miracles cannot occur. 4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will. 5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable. 6. Man is material. 7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact. 8. Ethics and morals are relative. >> _____________________ These views have some pretty serious and hard to defend implications, many of which arguably reduce the atheist to lacking grounds for the credibility of mind, for the experienced binding force of morals [implied by their appeal to the repugnance of evil in one of their favourite arguments, which rebounds against them], and for the cohesiveness of civilisation and liberty premised on mutual respect for the in-build rights we have. (It is no accident that the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 is explicitly Creationist: "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . ") GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Okay: In absence of M's summary of the warrant for his worldview or a link to something that represents him, let's abstract PZM's responses to Egnor as a sample of Neo-Atheist thought. (One would be well advised to read the full remarks by Dr Egnor.): _______________ >>1) Why is there anything? Myers: ? Nothing is unstable. 2) What caused the Universe?? Myers: Nothing caused it.? 3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?? Myers' answer: We wouldn't be here if there wasn't.? 4) Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?? Myers' answer: Material & efficient. How bizarre to think Aristotle is even relevant, except as a historical factor, or that ancient categories are apposite. 5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?? Myer's answer: "An epiphenomenon of the fact of instantiation.?" 6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? Myers' answer: Because minds aren't isolated, but a product of brain + environment.? 7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)? Myers' answer: It doesn't.? 8) Why is there evil? Myers' answer: Evil is simply anti-human, and most of the universe is against us. >> _______________ Collins English Dict will help:
nothing [?n????] pron 1. (indefinite) no thing; not anything, as of an implied or specified class of things I can give you nothing 2. no part or share to have nothing to do with this crime 3. a matter of no importance or significance it doesn't matter, it's nothing 4. indicating the absence of anything perceptible; nothingness 5. indicating the absence of meaning, value, worth, etc. to amount to nothing 6. zero quantity; nought
Nothing of course, is NO-THING. As such, it has no properties, is nowhere, and cannot cause anything. This is the first absurdity. Second, we may "liberally" interpret PZM's no 2 -- nothing caused the universe -- as implying that he holds the wider cosmos, as speculated per multiverse ideas, is a necessary being. On such a view, he accepts the force of the Cosmological argument in its genuine form, and this opens up the comparative difficulties case, which candidate for necessary being makes best sense of ALL the evidence? The notion that since we are here the universe has to have been orderly is a side-tracking irrelevancy. the fine-tuned physical order that sets the cosmos to an operating point that supports the possibility of C-chemistry, cell based life is one of the strongest pointers to a supreme intelligence as the author of the cosmos. PZM is ducking the bouncer, and pretending he has hit a four. Chronological snobbery against Aristotle is most unfortunate, yet another case of the proverbial live donkey kicking a dead lion. Even Wiki is of help here:
Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes:[1] * A thing's material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.) * A thing's formal cause is its form, i.e. the arrangement of that matter. * A thing's efficient or moving cause[2] is "the primary source of the change or rest." An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause.[3] (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)[1] * A thing's final cause is its aim or purpose. (For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.)
The four-causes analysis is obviously a valid way of looking at things in light of what they are made from, why they are made and how that is effected, and to what end they are made; of course, depending on perspective there may be diverse answers tot he questions. (Other causal analyses are possible: contributory, sustaining, necessary, sufficient, necessary and sufficient factors, etc.) PZM's answers to 5, 6 and 7 reveal the underlying evolutionary materialistic dilemma on man, mind and morality. Reducing mind to brain, and onward to matter in motion under forces of chance and necessity across time, ends in all sorts of absurdities, and undercuts the credibility of mind. For, such causal forces are a-logical, and cause is not equivalent to logically adequate grounds. That is, it is very hard for materialists to address te import that the mind is inescapably untrustworthy and delusional on their premises. Similarly, they cannot ground the very first fact: our self-aware conscious experience of the world and ability to focus our attention on things external to ourselves. Most worryingly, PZM sees the inherent amorality of such evolutionary materialism, but apparently does not recognise the extremely dangerous implications of such amorality. In that context, the warped perception of evil and the cosmos, are chilling. Of course, it is a fair inference that all of the views above are held to be properly rooted in "Science," i.e. Lewontinian style a priori materialism imposed on scientific reasoning, especially on origins. It is high time for fresh thinking. GEM of TKI PS: A 101 level survey of the grounding warrant for the Christian faith is here. (Cf responses to the classical skeptical objections here, and a survey of the minimal facts approach here.) Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is not mere blind faith flying in the teeth of rationality -- as opposed to rationalism.kairosfocus_{November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

null, I have a tendency to shy away from any charismatic leader. They usually end up with only their own groupies who are easily convinced. When the thinking man/woman understands their deceptions for what they are, they recognize that it's time to move on. For me this applies to political leaders, religious leaders, and pretty much anyone who draws attention to themselves. "Don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters." :) B. Dylan Anyway, obviously there are leaders I respect. They are usually the ones who keep me focused on Christ, rather than on themselves. Atheist movements are necessarily personality driven, as there's no higher authority. I think this is why they are always doomed to failure; however, much damage can be done prior to the downfall, as history has shown.CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

BA, Thanks for the Dolly vid (I love Dolly) and testimony vid. Very well done. I think you posted that vid a while ago. I remember it.CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

The deep, dark secret of the dwindling New Atheist movement is that the 'leaders' gave up on trying to convince very informed, well-read people of their position early on. They shifted their focus to picking up the easily bullied people (you can see Dawkins saying as much flatly) who are either ignorant, committed for political reasons largely, or just plain 'not too bright' (herd-followers, foot soldiers.) Have you noticed the considerable number of self-described agnostics who have distanced themselves from the NAs (Sorry, the 'gnus') over the past couple years? The above is why. The gnu ranks ended up flooded with dumb, loud, angry people. On the upside, these people are also tremendously easy to lead and fleece. (Witness how quickly so many took to calling themselves 'gnus', and how much money they spent on trinkets to buy.. uh.. Dawkins' webmaster a new house.)nullasalus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

I should mention that not all atheists are like Myers. A great many who I have encountered have an intensity to their intellect and integrity. I still, however, sense some incongruence with this and their atheistic ideology. There certainly is a disconnect. The new atheists are being more true behaviorally to their ideology in my view. They are the ones we need to keep a close watch on for the sake of our freedoms and our democracy.CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

CY, Egnor was clearly hitting on all cylinders with that article: CY you may appreciate this song: He's Alive - Dolly Parton - 1989 CMA - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRPWUHM80M That song is a favorite of mine for it was what the band at our church played after we got back from this following 'strange' Easter sunrise service: Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314bornagain77_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

BA, I think Egnor sums up new atheism quite well: "New Atheism is an intellectual and moral vacuum. It's all sneer, mockery, self-contradiction, and juvenilia. New Atheists aren't defenders of "science and reason." The inverse is true. They misrepresent science and reason for ideological ends. New Atheists have no answers to the fundamental questions of man. They don't even have coherent attempts to answer the questions. They don't understand the profound insights of classical theism. Most New Atheists don't even understand the questions. And their nihilistic atheist superstition denies even the most basic imperatives of Moral Law."CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

molch, "But you still fail to justify why only a Christian should be allowed to say this." Well first of all, I never said that someone is not allowed to believe what they believe. They certainly are. Freedom to believe what one chooses to believe is the backbone of freedom and democracy. In that freedom to believe, I'm perfectly justified in saying that Jesus is the Savior of not only past and present Christians, but all others who come to faith in him. I rest my faith in Jesus on the resurrection. If the resurrection occurred Jesus is justified in the claim as Savior. It's not then my own justification, but Jesus'. My justification rests on him. Show us that the resurrection didn't occur and you might have a case, but until you do, I and others who believe are perfectly justified. And justification takes on much more meaning than simply our world-view foundation. That justification is not only for me, but for everyone who believes, including the one who once believed in reincarnation and the one who once was an atheist, as I and several others on this Blog once were. Where does your justification come from?CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Go Michael EgnorUpright BiPed_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply