Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eric Metaxas uses science against atheism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.

Readers will recall Eric Metaxas, a Yale-educated writer (biographies) and broadcaster who unaccountably started writing facts about the unlikelihood of our existence as a mere accident, and the fine-tuning of our universe for life (not likely a mere accident either).

Christian profs of the usual sort soon struck back, to protect their swell racket. They never want faith to relate in any way to facts. Then they would be accountable:

The money shot for them is keeping your community and mine from understanding the significance of design in nature. Ladling dollops of brain-absent “faith,” to the strum of guitars.

Same venue, Daniel Bakken discusses one of these dhimmis for Darwin recruiters:

Dr. Grant can be forgiven if he is not up to date on the fields of cosmology, astrobiology, and the anthropic principle, as he is a professor of political science and an editor, not a scientist in astronomy or cosmology. But his seemingly religious conviction that none of these could possibly ever point to God is disturbing, and should raise flags as to his biases. We all have biases, but that doesn’t mean we can’t identify them and objectively evaluate the data, something I submit that Grant doesn’t want you to do.

But why is this a big surprise? Nothing ever points to God unless the “religion expert” holds out a treat and demands that we bark. Having had a bellyful of these people, I would recommend: Bite. Shred trousers.

“And Bowser the Schnauzer bit down on his trouser … ”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Science Has Finally Proven That Atheism Defies Any Logic and Reason

Note: New atheism doesn’t so much defy logic and reason as explains it away. Maybe that’s a more effective strategy. Time will tell.

See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away

Note: Originally, this article described Metaxas as a Yale historian, but a reader wrote to point out that he was educated at Yale but does not teach there. Thanks for clarification. (It is often hard to describe what people who write for a living do. 😉 )

Comments
There is no math. You just admitted that the universe is going to be called fine tuned regardless. That makes it meaningless.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
I may be babbling, but the fine tuning math remains. You can ignore me, CH, but you can't ignore the fine tuning maths. Embrace Science, don't run from it, By the way, the Universe is also excuisitely fine tuned for thunder and grapes. Thor & Dionysus would be impressed. You should be impressed too. Science.ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
"But the fine tuning for life is the same no matter how much life is generated" So both scenarios of there being an abundance of intelligent life and there being a near absence of intelligent life support fine tuning? That makes it meaningless, unfalsifiable babble.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
CHartsil, I misunderstood your Mountain example sorry. Basically you are asking which Universe is more fine tuned for life: 1) a Universe where SETI is discovering ET life on a daily basis. 2) a Universe where Earth is the only life. A Universe overflowing with life seems more fine tuned for life than a Universe with only Earth life. But the fine tuning for life is the same no matter how much life is generated. The fine tuning maths are the same, not dependent on the quantity of life. Anyway, the fine tuning for life on Earth that Eric M starts his vid with is a "subset" of the fine tuning for life in the Universe.ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Claims there is a problem. Does absolutely nothing to elaborate on the problem.CHartsil
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
">This 5 million ton mountain is fine tuned for gold mining because it contains .001oz of gold." CH, this shows the common misunderstanding of fine tuning given by many Atheists who do not yet comprehend the fine tuning "problem". You may want to hold off until you get a grasp.ppolish
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
>That further ad hominem Boy I just got schooled, what with that further deflection from you and all.CHartsil
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Christopher 'Ad Hominem' Hartsil ">That ad hominem," LOL, that's rich coming from you. Chart: "You sure showed me, what with not addressing anything I said." Funny, it mirrored everything you wrote, or don't you remember the motive behind the asinine absurdity of why you wrote it in the first place ?DavidD
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Our universe is fine tuned for life because one planet has life
Oh God..first of all when we say the Universe we mean everything inside it, including us. Secondly for this discussion to take place we need lots of things that you don't see but without them we wouldn't have this discussion such as miles of cables, thousands servers, satelites, billions and billions of programming code, internet packages, memory, computers, adminstrators and so on...because you see the rest of the Universe as irrelevant to life it doesn't mean it is, on the opposite everything points to a huge interacting system.JimFit
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
>That ad hominem, though. You sure showed me, what with not addressing anything I said.CHartsil
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Chart >Our universe is fine tuned for life because one planet has life >This 5 million ton mountain is fine tuned for gold mining because it contains .001oz of gold. >CHartsil is an intellectual Genius because he graduated from KindergartenDavidD
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
"Committed atheists will simply ignore any science that contradicts what they have already decided to believe." Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings. The idea that we should've already detected signs of ET intelligence, therefore god is specious at best. We're one solar system in one galaxy with the nearest galaxy being 2 million light years away. We're also quickly discovering that the move away from radio signals at all might be pretty quick for an intelligent species. >Our universe is fine tuned for life because one planet has life >This 5 million ton mountain is fine tuned for gold mining because it contains .001oz of gold.CHartsil
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
William J Murray "Committed atheists will simply ignore any science that contradicts what they have already decided to believe." Yes that is correct. On a similar note, recently I've seen this article posted around the Net about a woman of high IQ named Marilyn vos Savant, who was demonized by almost every pseudo-intellect and for the usual failed and ulterior motive reasons. The woman was eventually proved correct and as the article pointed out: "Eventually though, many of those who’d written in to correct vos Savant’s math backpedaled and ceded that they were in error. "An exercise proposed by vos Savant to better understand the problem was soon integrated in thousands of classrooms across the nation. Computer models were built that corroborated her logic, and support for her intellect was gradually restored. Whereas only 8% of readers had previously believed her logic to be true, this number had risen to 56% by the end of 1992, writes vos Savant; among academics, 35% initial support rose to 71%." I really don't want to focus on this controversy, but in that article there is one paragraph which stands out which beautifully illustrates the Atheistic herd mentality [very rarely do they do anything without the Herd] and strategy when confronted with evidence they find distasteful and inconvenient to their worldview and how they go about taking care of business. Here is that paragraph: "When people are confronted with evidence that is “inconsistent with their beliefs” (ie. the odds of winning by switching doors being ?, instead of ½), they first respond by refuting the information, then band together with like-minded dissenters and champion their own hard-set opinion. This is precisely the mentality of vos Savant’s thousands of naysayers." I couldn't have put it better myself, with the exception of adding their use of derogatory insults, personal attacks, etc in the face of zero viable evidence of their own. Here is the link to that article: http://priceonomics.com/the-time-everyone-corrected-the-worlds-smartest/ **** Andre "They know their worldview is false, atheists are just angry at their Creator for giving them free will, have you noticed they always complain about how God ought to be or not." It's not really that they know their worldview is false as they want and desire it to be correct. It is odd that like Darwin, they blame God for things real or imagined. Like Darwin's arguments, those were not science, but rather religious arguments. This has never been a debate about science so much as it is one of morality and accountability. But as Genesis chapter 3 brings out, that is the how and why things went wrong in the first place. The free will to decide "good and bad" - "right or wrong". So from the very beginning this has never been any great mystery. In fact the creation debate is not exactly why the book was written in the first place [more often than not is seems to detract from that purpose], but science has mostly been used as a justification for a chosen behavioral lifestyle and worldview life pattern. I do think for many atheists and maybe Agnostics, the problem also is not so much with a God they cannot see as it is with those throughout history who have claimed to represent that invisible God, but yet their conduct showed otherwise. That is something that rarely gets addressed and it should.DavidD
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
WJM They know their worldview is false, atheists are just angry at their Creator for giving them free will, have you noticed they always complain about how God ought to be or not. Scanning through their whimpering's one immediately recognised that every committed atheist wants a genie that they can order around to do their bidding.Andre
February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
Committed atheists will simply ignore any science that contradicts what they have already decided to believe.William J Murray
February 22, 2015
February
02
Feb
22
22
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply