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

VJ, The following is my understanding. Others are quite welcome to either disagree or to correct me: If you do find a comprehensive list, I think you would want to have a thorough working of Daniel's 70 weeks, which I believe is the most significant fulfilled prophecy of the OT. It predicts some 400 years prior, the date that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem. It also talks about the crucifixion, although not in so many words, and hints at the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, fulfilled in 70 C.E. There are several interpretations of the 70 weeks prophecy, some are more accurate than others. It might also interest you that the early critical scholars considered Daniel to have been written sometime after the crucifixion due to the prophecy. That was until the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery in the 1940s, pushing the date back at least 200 years. Another interesting little tidbit - It is quite rightly asserted that all records, which could trace the Messiah through a lineage of David were destroyed during the conquest of Jerusalem, marking the time of Christ very significant as far as Messiahship is concerned. Any future "messiah" could not legally trace his lineage apart from that which was recorded in the New Testament, and why would he want to? Alan, Thanks for mentioning prophecy. It is quite significant, and can't really be denied without some speculative effort.CannuckianYankee_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Collin @ 3
I think that an atheist’s best argument against God is the problem of evil. This is true because it is philosophically strong and emotionally cogent.
I'd say of all the primary arguments against the existence of God, the argument from evil by far the weakest. Christian theology had this worked out ages ago: God values free will, and you simply cannot have free will without the possibility for conflict and competition, anymore than you can have a square without corners.jurassicmac_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

alan (#15) Do you by any chance have a good link to an article suitable for non-Christians, on the prophecies that were fulfilled precisely in Jesus? I'm looking for an article that would withstand an attempted battering by a group of disputatious skeptics who might be inclined to question the facts, and say things like, "How do you know Jesus was really born in Bethlehem?" The nearest thing I can find is Glenn Miller's Response to Jim Lippard's "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah" (1993), but as you can see, it's a work in progress.vjtorley_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

I agree, it certainly is not through rationality and logic that the denial of the reality of God springs from in atheists minds. It must arise from their emotions and deceptive imaginations. Romans 1:19-20 'since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 men are without excuse.'bornagain77_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

What does one who chooses "not to believe" have to do statistically from a rational/logical/mathematical endeavor to conclude that the Massive amounts of precise prophetic fulfillments accomplished in and only in Christ are just "literature" and not facts? I suspect the answer is to just ignore them rather than honestly evaluate them. "There was a time before the past, when things to come were clearly cast - what is that to you?"alan_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

I too believe in libertarian free will, in the sense that persons who are created with it cannot have it taken away from them. Can you explain how Saul of Tarsus' conversion was an act of free will on his part? He experienced direct communication from the deity, struck blind then healed. If the deity desired Saul's belief and saw fit to use such strong direct evidence, isn't it prudent for other non-believers to expect similar evidence and not rely on human testimony?clamflats_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Collin, I agree. This is why, IMO, god is always deniable; one can always choose to not believe in god and feel justified in so doing. When asked why I believe in god, my first answer is "Because I choose to." I can then support that belief with evidence and argument, but I never say that such evidence compelled me, or should compel anyone, to believe. It is only by wanting (choosing) to believe in god that any argument or evidence for god will "make sense" IMO; when one has chosen not to believe in god, no amount of evidence, nor any argument, will suffice.William J. Murray_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

VJ, Thanks for your very thorough list. I guess I'll be busy this fall as well.CannuckianYankee_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Thanks for all those who commented on my comment. Lots of interesting things to think about. I think that God makes Himself deniable because he doesn't want anyone believing in Him because it is undeniable, but because they WANT to believe in Him. That's the test, that's the separating the wheat and the tares.Collin_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, The reason I don't subscribe to that particular view of the afterlife is because, IMO, it is logically unsustainable. A characteristic can only be identifiable via the necessary contextual relationship of "what it is" and "what it is not". There cannot be good without non-good. What you describe for the afterlife may exist, but it couldn't rationally be identified as "good" unless what is "not good" contextually coexisted to give the characteristic meaning. Similarly, IMO free either means free, or it doesn't mean free. Free will is free to intend whatever it wishes; since (IMO) good cannot identifiably exist without the contextual not-good, it will always be within the capacity of free will entities to choose to do or pursue not-good. IMO, of course. BTW, I do love your posts and blog submissions, and read them with a great deal of enjoyment.William J. Murray_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

allan Thank you for your post. I completely agree that my list of articles can never be enough to bring men to knowledge of the Truth, which can only come from the Spirit of God. When compiling this list, I was thinking more of 1 Peter 3:15, which says:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...
If my list can help some believers do that, then it will have served its purpose. And while it may not convert a skeptic, perhaps it may open his/her mind, just a little.vjtorley_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

nullasalus Thank you for your post. You ask:
Are there reports of a 900 foot Jesus anywhere in your files, vjtorley? How about reports of a man identifying himself as Jesus showing up and turning an atheist's arms into tentacles, then back again, before disappearing into the sky? Because that's what Coyne is hunting for.
If you look at my new Web page, you'll find that there was a man who was publicly seen to levitate more than 1,000 times, during his life. OK, so it's not quite up there with Professor Coyne's octopus, but it's pretty powerful evidence for the supernatural, at least. If it fails to convince Professor Coyne, I'd like to ask him: if this is not enough to make you change about God, how many orders of magnitude short is it, in terms of getting you to alter your belief? (For example: "If it had been 100 times stronger, I would have converted to belief in God - so that's two orders of magnitude short.") Also, surely seeing a man levitate should increase a skeptic's subjective estimate of the probability that God exists. In that case, I would ask Professor Coyne: how did your estimate change? What was it before and what is it now? (For example: "It used to be 1 in 10^6; now, it's 1 in 10^2, so that's an increase of four orders of magnitude.") An intellectually honest skeptic should be able to answer all these questions.vjtorley_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

William Murray, Thank you for your post. I would personally agree with your assertion that God "may want atheists to believe, but it would require the abolishment of their free will in order to make it so." I too believe in libertarian free will, in the sense that persons who are created with it cannot have it taken away from them. I'm afraid I would disagree, however, with your contention that "God may **want** evil to not exist, but it would require the abolition of good as well." In the short term, yes, but what about Heaven? Heaven is free from evil, or even the possibility of evil. Presumably there must come a stage when those whose hearts are open to the goodness of God finally attain to the vision of God, which is the goal for which they were created. Having attained it, they are no longer free to turn away from God; their love of God is by now fixed and unchangeable, as their wills have been confirmed in grace. In other respects, however, their wills would still be free.vjtorley_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Collin, You ask some very interesting questions. If you want an in-depth (albeit somewhat technical) discussion of omnipotence, you might like the article, Omnipotence in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Professor Alfred Freddoso did a lot of good philosophical work on the subject back in the 1980s. You ask if God can hate, lie and sin. I would answer that God can do whatever is compatible with His nature and with the natures of His creatures. God by nature knows and loves in the most perfect way possible. Hence I would say that He cannot lie to us, because He would then be thwarting our natural appetite (as rational beings) for truth, which He himself created us with. A perfectly loving Being would not do that. Can God hate? He cannot hate persons - even Satan, the fallen angels and the damned who are in hell - because qua persons (i.e. rational agents), they are essentially good, even if their choices are wicked. God can, however, hate the wickedness of a wicked choice - but not the act of choosing, which is essentially good. Evil, in other words, is a privation. Can God sin? No, because sin is a failure to be virtuous, and God is by nature perfectly loving. Hence He is incapable of any moral failings. As for why there is so much evil in the world, I'm very wary of rationalizations, but I believe the message of Scripture when it traces evil back to the Fall. That said, I would allow that certain kinds of evil can teach us moral lessons in life. And as for why God does not step in and prevent evil more often, I would suspect that God cannot, because He is bound by a promise not to, and God cannot break a promise. Perhaps He promised Adam, at the time of the Fall, that He would respect the human race's desire for "independence," and that He would not intervene in certain ways stipulated by Adam. (Of course, Adam never imagined the Incarnation, so that left God with a huge "ace up His sleeve.") But that's just my guess.vjtorley_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Collin, God can only do what is logically possible to do. In order for "good" to exist, that which contextualizes and defines it must also exist. This is the principle of identity; if god creates "good", then everything that is "not-good" must also exist. Also, if humans are to have free will, there cannot ever be evidence so compelling of god's existence that one has no choice but to believe in God; god must always be deniable, or else we wouldn't have free will. It seems to me that both of the standard atheist arguments - that evil exists and god could get rid of it if he wanted, and that god could make atheists believe if god wanted - cannot be supported rationally, and in fact are required by logic to be the way they are. God may **want** evil to not exist, but it would require the abolition of good as well; god may want atheists to believe, but it would require the abolishment of their free will in order to make it so.William J. Murray_{October 21, 2010
October
10
Oct
21
21
2010
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Collin, While it's not a belief I subscribe to, Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist, one hell of a book) takes that route explicitly. I wonder if Mormons take the same tack.nullasalus_{October 20, 2010
October
10
Oct
20
20
2010
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

alan, I have found what you say to be true: proving that God is real, by objective evidence, is not the same thing as a person developing a personal relationship with God. But sometimes it can motivate them to prayer. VJtorley, I think that an atheist's best argument against God is the problem of evil. This is true because it is philosophically strong and emotionally cogent. But to me there is a quick way around it but theists are reluctant to do it. It concerns the omnipotence of God. Do Christians believe that God is strictly and totally omnipotent? I mean, can God hate? Can He lie? Can He sin and still be good? If not, then there are limitations to what God can do and therefore the problem of evil can be got around. It seems to me that God cannot make a person know what pain is like without having them experience it. And there may be a very compelling and GOOD reason why God wants us to know what pain feels like; even very bad pain. It helps us understand, like nothing else can, the sacrifice Jesus made for us.Collin_{October 20, 2010
October
10
Oct
20
20
2010
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

#1. "The natural man can not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are spiritually understood - known." #2 What "Spiritual" things - "And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: #3. Coyne must be a natural man. If one can not see the fulfillment of the many prophecies concerning the Christ, one is NOT paying attention and God will allow that heart to get harder and harder by allowing a natural point of view/mind set. #4. vjtorley - your list is admirable maybe, but not sufficient for one to come to the "knowledge of the Truth" What is the "power of God" unto the "new creation/new man" except the two edge Sword.alan_{October 20, 2010
October
10
Oct
20
20
2010
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Are there reports of a 900 foot Jesus anywhere in your files, vjtorley? How about reports of a man identifying himself as Jesus showing up and turning an atheist's arms into tentacles, then back again, before disappearing into the sky? Because that's what Coyne is hunting for. Let's give credit where credit is due, sure. But only as much as is due, and the amount Coyne deserves here is little. If it wasn't for Myers being hilariously crazy and going against Coyne on one of his key talking points, he'd come across as just as off-base, uninformed, and - frankly - nuts as ever.nullasalus_{October 20, 2010
October
10
Oct
20
20
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply